What did Jesus teach about Divorce?

A while ago I wrote a note about the way Christians ought to treat people with same-sex attractions.  I mentioned that if more Christians were willing to speak frankly about things like divorce, then homosexual acts would not be perceived as being a sin above all others.  

Well, today I’ll take my own advice and draft a sketch of a very tough issue.  What did Jesus teach about divorce?

“Thou Shall Not” vs. “Thou Cannot”:

In the tenth chapter of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus was asked to clarify his position on divorce.  His answer remains shocking today:  

“From the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate. Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." – Mark 10:5-12

Here we see Jesus proposing that a man who divorces his first wife and marries a second woman is actually committing adultery against the first woman.  But how do you commit adultery against a woman you are not married to?

The answer is that the divorce may be a valid legal procedure in the eyes of man - but what Jesus is pointing out is that it changes nothing in the eyes of God.  The man is still reckoned by God as married to the first spouse.

The upshot is that Jesus did not say, “Thou shall not divorce”.  Rather this is, “Thou cannot divorce”.  He says the bond of Christian marriage is unbreakable by human power.  Thus, a husband and wife remain married in God’s eyes even if they get divorced civilly.  

So the person who gets divorced and remarried does not have a new spouse.  He does not have two spouses.  He has the same spouse as before, and now he's committing adultery upon her.

Many people mistakenly think a person can simply confess the sin of divorce (presuming it was a sin) and move on with his life.  That is not the case - the real sin involved here is not the divorce, it is the ongoing adultery.  The second adulterous union is the sin which must be repented from.

  

A Loophole?:

There is, however, a seeming exception recorded in Matthew’s account.  Here’s what it says:

“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for [πορνεία], and marries another, commits adultery” - Matthew 19:9

That Greek word in that clause is pronounced “pornea”, which is why it is called the “Pornea Clause”.  

“Pornea” most closely means “sexual perverseness” or “sexual unlawfulness”.  The meaning of the word in this context flummoxes many translators.  But since it denotes some kind of unlawful sexual act, most settle on “adultery”.    This leads many Christians to believe that a marriage can be legitimately dissolved by adultery.

Here are three reasons why that doesn’t work:

1)  Man Suddenly Can Put Asunder: 

Jesus said that what God has joined together, no man may put asunder.  If the Pornea Clause means “except for adultery”, then that is a very straightforward way for man to put a marriage asunder.

2)  Wrong Word:

If the Pornea Clause was supposed to point to adultery, Matthew would have used the actual Greek word for adultery.  That word is “μοιχεία” or “Moicheia”.  This is the word Matthew used throughout his Gospel when referring to adultery.

For instance, look at what Matthew says in chapter 5:27-28.  In both instances he uses the proper word "Moicheia" for adultery:

And now in 15:19.  Same thing.  He even uses the word "pornea" right after "moicheia" to refer to something different.

This is even the case in Matthew 19:9 itself, you'll find that the word at the end of the sentence for adultery is "Moicheia".

So if Matthew meant to say adultery twice in the same sentence, why use a totally different word?

3)  A Self-Defeating Statement:

 It creates a gigantic and obvious legal loophole.  Think about the implications of this statement:  

“If anyone gets divorced and remarried, except for the case of adultery, he commits adultery.”  

Jesus would be setting up a situation where the consequence of not having a legitimate reason to divorce… would result in a legitimate reason to divorce.

Here it is in flowchart form:

And Jesus told this to a group of lawyers?  The best evidence against the Pornea Clause meaning “except adultery” is that the Pharisees didn’t burst out laughing.  

So What Does the Pornea Clause Mean?:

If you’ve read the Mosaic Law, you may have run across a list of sexual unions which the Jews considered intrinsically immoral.  This list, found at Lev 18:6-18, includes stuff like marrying your siblings, your parents, or your aunt or uncle.  The Jews would not have considered these obscene unions to be marriages.    

You even find an example of this in 1 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul describes the perversity of a man who is having relations with his step-mother.  And the word he uses to describe it is … “pornea”.

So now let’s reread the Pornea Clause with that approach:

“If you divorce and remarry, except for cases of sexual obscenity where it wouldn’t be considered a valid marriage in the first place, you’re committing adultery.”   

Now the passage is legally coherent, logically consistent, matches the Greek words, and agrees with the other Gospel accounts.  And it matches Saint Paul, who said:

"Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. [ ... ] A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord." - 1 Corinthians 7:10-11,39

So if someone is divorced, Saint Paul says Jesus leaves him/her with two options:

1. Reconcile to the spouse
2. Stay single until the spouse is dead

Why?  Because according to the teaching of Jesus, the person is still married to the first spouse.

This is repeated by Paul in Romans 7:

"A married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him.  So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man." - Romans 7:2-3

Thus we see that Jesus taught that there can be no divorce among his followers – no exceptions, no loopholes.  Perhaps that is why his disciples responded in horror:

"If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry!" – Matthew 19:10

Why is Jesus so Cruel?

With all this said, it is fair to ask why He would be so harsh.  Did Jesus not foresee the heartbreak this law would cause?  

I think the answer comes in the passages immediately following the banning of divorce.  The Gospels record people bringing their children to Jesus for a blessing.  When the Apostles tried to shoo away the little brats, Christ embraced the children and said:

  “The kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.” – Matthew 19:14

So perhaps Jesus was thinking of the sobs of children who hear their parents fighting at night, wishing they would just love each other.  Maybe He knew that to a child the word “divorce” means the destruction of an entire world.    

In rendering divorce impossible, Jesus makes it clear He expects nothing less than a lifetime of selfless love from married Christians.  No substitute would be accepted.  The Lord takes the bond of marriage as seriously as a child does… because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them.   

-------------------------------------------------

Addendum: A Second Loophole?

For an additional "out" for marriage, some will point to Paul's instructions in 1Corinthians 7:12-16.  It reads:

"To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you.) Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife."

In this section, Paul addresses the situation of a Christian being married to a non-Christian.  He says the default choice for a Christian in that position should be staying with the non-Christian spouse.  After all, this will give him/her the chance to teach the children and perhaps convert non-Christian.

In the parenthetical statement he addresses the possibility of the non-Christian abandoning the Christian.  In that situation Paul says the Christian is not bound to the non-Christian.  In other words, a marriage between a Christian and non-Christian can be dissolved if the non-Christian spouse leaves.

Many try to craft this into a broad-application loophole by expanding the word "abandon" to mean other things. (I heard of one case where a council of elders determined that long-term unemployment was a form of abandonment)  Then folks ignore the fact that this instruction was only given for situations where a non-Christian abandons a Christian.  This is obviously misusing the text.  

But as we saw above, for marriage between Christians the teaching of Christ is that the bond is unbreakable by anything other than death.

For more, see [this post] on the case of marriages which are abusive.